View Single Post
Old 07-31-2009, 12:00 AM   #7  
FighterHayabusa
Gets Weekends Off
 
FighterHayabusa's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 150 left seat if I'm lucky
Posts: 172
Default

I'm not ignoring the unintended consequences, I'm just stating that it's not a FACT that we WILL 100% be a single payer system, and arguments that say we shouldn't do anything because we will look like Canada are fallacious and misleading and ignore the problems with the status quo.

So I drop coverage for my employees.


What if you can't drop it? Yes some small businesses may drop health care, but others won't be allowed to.

So much for being able to keep the plan you have if you are happy with it.
You should find someone else to argue this point with since I make no such claim. I'm sure they've thought of this somewhere in the 1000s of pages in at least 1 of the 4 competing bills, though. I don't care so I'm not going to look it up.

This is the slippery slope to a single-payer system.
This is like saying "This is my invalid argument". Look up where "Slippery Slope" comes from, and wonder like I do why all of the sudden it's been legitimized to mean one is saying something valid.
If it's illegal for a large company to have employees on a public system, how can there be no private system? (As I understand it, the public option is only for individual policies, not large groups, I could be wrong)

Medicare/Medicaid are NOT examples of effective government-paid healthcare.

I made no claim of the sort, I merely pointed out that they are government options that haven't killed private care.

Unless of course the government subsidizes the exchanges. Which runs counter to the argument that a public plan would compete on a level playing field with private insurers, and would increase the government's cost. Subsidies to a public option, which make it harder for private insurance to compete, would be another slippery slope to a single-payer system.


The subsidies are not for public option, they are for people who are mandated to buy insurance and can't afford it. You will get the subsidy whether you buy public or private. If the government does this right, public option would be very basic care. No one knows with 100% certainty that it won't be.

You've presented two hypothetical situations that single payer could happen, but you present no solid evidence other than speculation and a non-professional opinion and then frame them by stating they are logical fallacies.

If you address one thing from this post, answer this: Why are the majority of universal health care systems not single payer if single payer is so inevitable?
FighterHayabusa is offline